Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton"

See other formats


Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. paper2 
April 11,2008 



© ESO 2008 



Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters 

observed with XMM-Newton 

A. Leccardi''^ and S. Molendi^ 



00 

O 

o 



6 



> 

o 
o 

oo 
O 



X 



' Universita degli Studi di Milano, Dip. di Fisica, via Celoria 16, 1-20133 Milano, Italy 
- INAF-IASF Milano, via Bassini 15, 1-20133 Milano, Italy 



Received February 8, 2008; accepted April 8, 2008 



ABSTRACT 



Aims. We measure, as far out as possible, radial temperature profiles for a sample of » 50 hot, intermediate redshift galaxy clusters, 

selected from the XMM-Newton archive, keeping systematic errors under control. 

Methods. Our work is characterized by two major improvements. Firstly, we use the background modeling, rather than the background 

subtraction, and the Cash statistic rather than the^-; this method requires a careful characterization of all background components. 

Secondly, we assess in details systematic effects. We perform two groups of test: prior to the analysis, we make use of extensive 

simulations to quantify the impact of different spectral components on simulated spectra; after the analysis, we investigate how the 

measured temperature profile changes, when choosing different key parameters. 

Results. The mean temperature profile declines beyond 0.2 Risq; for the first time we provide an assessment of the source and the 

magnitude of systematic uncertainties. When comparing our profile with that obtained from hydrodynamic simulations, we find the 

slopes beyond » 0.2 Rigo to be similar. Our mean profile is similar but somewhat flatter with respect to that obtained by previous 

observational works, possibly as a consequence of a different level of characterization of systematic effects. 

Conclusions. This work allows us not only to constrain with confidence cluster temperature profiles in outer regions, but also, from 

a more general point of view, to explore the limits of the current X-ray experiments (in particular XMM-Newton) with respect to the 

analysis of low surface brightness emission. 

Key words. X-rays: galaxies: clusters - Galaxies: clusters: general - Cosmology: observations 



1. Introduction 

Clusters of galaxies are the most massive gravitationally bound 
systems in the universe. They are permeated by the hot, X- 
ray emitting, intra-cluster medium (ICM), which represents the 
dominant baryonic component. The key ICM observable quan- 
tities are its density, temperature, and metallicity. Assuming 
hydrostatic equilibrium, the gas temperature and density pro- 
files allow us to derive the total cluster mass and thus to use 
galax y clusters as cosmol ogical probes (e .g. [Henry & Arnaul 
I199U lEttori et alJ llool iFabian & AUenl 120031: IVoitI I2005L 
Temperature and density profiles can also be combined to 
determine the ICM entropy distribution, that provides valu- 
able information on the cluster thermodynamic history and has 
proven to be a powerf ul tool to investigate non-gravita t ional 
processes (e.g . Ponma n et al.ll2003l [McCarthy et al] 120041; IVoi^ 
l2005l;lPrattetal...2006.) . 

Cluster outer regions are rich of information and interest- 
ing t o study, because c l usters are still forming there by accretion 
(e.g. iTozzi et aLlBOOOt iBorgani et al.ll2004.) ; moreover, far from 
the core it is easier to compare simulations with observations, 
because feedback effects are less important (e.g. Borgani et al. 
[2004; McNamara et al. 2005; RoncarelH et al. 2006)'. Cluster 
surface brightness rapidly declines with radius, while back- 
ground (of instrumental, solar, local, and cosmic origin) is 
roughly constant over the detector For this reason, spectra ac- 
cumulated in the outer regions are characterized by poor statis- 
tics and high background, especially at high energies, where the 
instrumental background dominates other components. These 
conditions make temperature measurement at large distances 



from the center a technically challenging task, requiring an 
adequate treatment of bo th statistical and systematic issues 
dLeccardi & Molendill2007l) . 

Given the technical difficulties, early measurements of clus- 
ter temperature profiles have been controversial. At the end 
of the ASCA and BeppoSAX era, the shape of the profiles at 
large radii was still the subject of debate (jM arkevitch et ajj 
79991 ; IrniSlIOOOt llrwin & Breeman .2005 



19981; llrwinetal 



Finoguenov et al.1 



2001 



iDe Grandi & Molendil 120021) . Recent 
observations with current experiments (i.e. XMM-Newton and 
Chandra) have clearly shown that cluster temperature pro- 
files dechne beyond the 15-20% of Ria n dPiffaretti e t al. 200j 



; bey 



IVikhhnin et all 120051; iPratt et alj IIoOTI; ISnowden et al. .200: 
However, most of these measurements might be unreliable at 
very large radii (> 50% of Riso) because they are affected by 
a number of systematics r elated to the analysis techni que and to 
the background treatment dLeccardi & Molendill2007l) . 

The aim of this work is to measure the mean temperature 
profile of galaxy clusters as far out as possible, while keep- 
ing systematic errors under control. We select from the XMM- 
Newton archive all hot {kT > 3.5 keV), intermediate redshift 
(0.1 < z < 0.3) clusters, that are not strongly interacting, and 
measure their radial temperature profiles. The spectral analysis 
follows a new approach; we use the background modeling, rather 
than the background subtraction, and the Cash statistic rather 
than \ht x^. This method requires a careful characterization (re- 
ported in the Appendices) of all background components, which 
unfortunately has not been possible for EPIC-pn; for this reason, 
in our analysis we use only EPIC-MOS data. 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 



Background parameters are estimated in a peripheral region, 
where the cluster emission is almost negligible, and rescaled in 
the regions of interest. The spectral fitting is performed in the 
0.7- 10.0 keV and in the 2.0- 10.0 keV energy bands, that are char- 
acterized by different statistics and level of systematics, to check 
the consistency of our results. A second important point is a par- 
ticular attention to systematic effects. We perform two groups of 
test: prior to the analysis, we make use of extensive simulations 
to quantify the impact of different components (e.g. the cosmic 
variance or the soft proton contribution) on simulated spectra; 
after the analysis, we investigate how the measured temperature 
profile changes, when choosing different key parameters (e.g. 
the truncation radius or the energy band). At the end of our tests, 
we provide an assessment of the source and the magnitude of 
systematic uncertainties associated to the mean profile. 

We compare our profiles with those obtained from hydrody- 
namic simulations (Borgani et al. 20 0J) and from previous ob- 
serva t ional wo rks (De Gran di & Molendil 120021: IVikhhnin et al.l 
120051: iPratt et al. 2007). Our work does not only provide a con- 
firmation of previous results. For the first time we believe we 
know where the systematics come from and how large they are. 
Indeed, this work allows us not only to constrain with confidence 
cluster temperature profiles in the outer regions, but also, from a 
more general point of view, to explore the limits of the current 
X-ray experiments (in paiticulai XMM-Newton). It is crucial that 
we learn how best to exploit XMM-Newton data, because for the 
next 5-10 years there will be no experiments with comparable or 
improved capabilities, as far as low surface brightness emission 
is concerned. Our work will also allow us to look forward to am- 
bitious new measurements: an example is the attempt to measure 
the putative shock in Abell 754, for which we have obtained a 
^ 200 ks observation with XMM-Newton in A07. 

The outline of the paper is the following. In Sect. |2] we de- 
scribe sample properties and selection criteria and in Sect. [3] 
we describe in detail our data analysis technique. In Sect. |4] we 
present the radial temperature profiles for all clusters in our sam- 
ple and compute the average profile. In Sect. |5] we describe our 
analysis of systematic effects. In Sect.|6]we characterize the pro- 
file decline, investigate its dependency from physical properties 
(e.g. the redshift), and compare it with hydrodynamic simula- 
tions and previous observational works. Our main results are 
summarized in Sect. Q In the Appendices we report the anal- 
ysis of closed and blank field observations, which allows us to 
characterize most background components. 

Quoted confidence intervals are 68% for one interesting pa- 
rameter (i.e. AC =1), unless otherwise stated. All results are 
given assuming a ACDM cosmology with Q^ = 0.3, Qa = 0.7, 
andi/o = 70kms-'Mpc-i. 



2. The sample 

We select from the XMM-Newton archive a sample of hot (kr > 
3.3 keV), intermediate redshift (0.1 < z < 0.3), and high galactic 
latitude (\b\ > 20°) clusters of galaxies. Upper and lower limits to 
the redshift range are determined, respectively, by the cosmolog- 
ical dimming effect and the size of the EPIC field of view (w 15' 
radius). Indeed, our data analysis technique requires that the 
intensity of background components be estimated in a periph- 
eral region, where the cluster emission is almost negligible (see 
Sect. |3.2.TT i. We retrieve from the public archive all observations 
of clusters satisfying the above selection criteria, performed be- 
fore March 2005 (when the CCD6 of EPIC-MOSl was switched 



Table 1. Observations excluded from the sample due to high soft 
proton contamination. 



Name 


ObsID 


RXCJ0303.8-7752 


0042340401 


RXCJ05 16.7-5430 


0042340701 


RXCJ0528.9-3927 


0042340801 


RXCJ20 11.3-5725 


0042341101 


Abell 2537 


0042341201 


RXCJ0437. 1+0043 


0042341601 


Abell 1302 


0083150401 


Abell 2261 


0093030301 


Abell 2261 


0093030801 


Abell 2261 


0093030901 


Abell 2261 


0093031001 


Abell 2261 


0093031101 


Abell 2261 


0093031401 


Abell 2261 


0093031501 


Abell 2261 


0093031601 


Abell 2261 


0093031801 


Abell 2219 


0112231801 


Abell 2219 


0112231901 


RXCJ0006.0-3443 


0201900201 


RXCJ0145.0-5300 


0201900501 


RXCJ0616.8-4748 


0201901101 


RXCJ0437. 1+0043 


0205330201 


Abell 2537 


0205330501 



Table 2. Observations of clusters that show evidence of recent 
and strong interactions. 



Name 



ObsID 



Abell 2744 
Abell 665 
Abell 665 
Abell 1914 
Abell 2163 
Abell 2163 
RXCJ0658.5-5556 
Abell 1758 
Abell 1882 
Abell 901 
Abell 520 
Abell 2384 
Abell 115 
ZwC1234 1.1 +0000 



0042340101 
0109890401 
0109890501 
0112230201 
0112230601 
0112231501 
0112980201 
0142860201 
0145480101 
0148170101 
0201510101 
0201902701 
0203220101 
0211280101 



ofQ) and available at the end of May 2007. Unfortunately, 23 
of these 86 observations are highly affected by soft proton flares 
(see Table [U. We exclude them from the sample, because their 
good (i.e. after flare cleaning, see Sect. 13.1.1b exposure time is 
not sufficient (less than 16 ks when summing MOSl and MOS2) 
to measure reliable temperature profiles out to external regions. 
Furthermore, we exclude 14 observations of clusters that show 
evidence of recent and strong interactions (see Table|2|. For such 
clusters, a radial analysis is not appropriate, because the gas dis- 
tribution is far from being azimuthally symmetric. Finally, we 
find that the target of observation 0201901901, which is classi- 
fied as a cluster, is likely a point-like source; therefore, we ex- 
clude this observation too from our sample. 

In Table [3] we list the 48 observations that survived our se- 
lection criteria and report cluster physical properties. The red- 
shift value (from optical measurements) is taken from the NASA 



' http://xmm.vilspa.esa.es/external/xmm_news/items/MOS 1-CCD6/ 
index, shtml 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 
Table 3. Physical properties and observation details for the 48 clusters of our sample. 



Name 


Obs ID 


a 


kTu" 


^iso'' 


Exp. 


time" 


^sb'^ 


Filter 


RXCJ0043.4-2037 


0042340201 


0.2924 


6.8 


1.78 


11.9 


11.3 


1.25 


THINl 


RXCJ0232.2-4420 


0042340301 


0.2836 


7.2 


1.85 


12.1 


11.7 


1.08 


THINl 


RXCJ0307.0-2840 


0042340501 


0.2534 


6.8 


1.82 


114 


12.6 


1.08 


THINl 


RXCJ1131.9-1955 


0042341001 


0.3072 


8.1 


1.93 


124 


12.3 


1.08 


THINl 


RXCJ2337.6+0016 


0042341301 


0.2730 


7.2 


1.86 


134 


13.1 


1.19 


THINl 


RXCJ0532.9-3701 


0042341801 


0.2747 


7.5 


1.90 


10.9 


10.5 


1.09 


THINl 


Abell 68 


0084230201 


0.2550 


7.2 


1.88 


26.3 


25.9 


1.37 


MEDIUM 


Abell 209 


0084230301 


0.2060 


6.6 


1.85 


17.9 


17.8 


1.19 


MEDIUM 


Abell 267 


0084230401* 


0.2310 


4.5 


1.49 


17.0 


16.5 


1.79 


MEDIUM 


Abell 383 


0084230501 


0.1871 


4.4 


1.52 


29.3 


29.8 


1.33 


MEDIUM 


Abell 773 


0084230601 


0.2170 


7.5 


1.96 


13.6 


15.5 


1.16 


MEDIUM 


Abell 963 


0084230701 


0.2060 


6.5 


1.83 


24.4 


26.0 


1.19 


MEDIUM 


Abell 1763 


0084230901 


0.2230 


7.2 


1.92 


13.0 


13.2 


1.08 


MEDIUM 


Abell 1689 


0093030101 


0.1832 


9.2 


2.21 


36.8 


36.8 


1.14 


THINl 


RXJ2 129.6+0005 


0093030201 


0.2350 


5.5 


1.66 


36.0 


37.5 


1.21 


MEDIUM 


ZW3146 


0108670101 


0.2910 


7.0 


1.81 


52.9 


52.9 


1.07 


THINl 


E1455+2232 


0108670201 


0.2578 


5.0 


1.56 


35.3 


35.8 


1.11 


MEDIUM 


Abell 2390 


0111270101 


0.2280 


11.2 


2.37 


9.9 


10.3 


1.11 


THINl 


Abell 2204 


0112230301 


0.1522 


8.5 


2.16 


18.2 


19.5 


1.06 


MEDIUM 


Abell 1413 


0112230501 


0.1427 


6.7 


1.92 


254 


25.4 


1.10 


THINl 


Abell 2218 


0112980101 


0.1756 


6.5 


1.86 


18.2 


18.2 


1.17 


THINl 


Abell 2218 


0112980401 


0.1756 


7.0 


1.93 


13.7 


14.0 


1.42 


THINl 


Abell 2218 


0112980501 


0.1756 


6.1 


1.80 


11.3 


11.0 


1.07 


THINl 


Abell 1835 


0147330201 


0.2532 


8.6 


2.05 


30.1 


29.2 


1.16 


THINl 


Abell 1068 


0147630101 


0.1375 


4.5 


1.58 


20.5 


20.8 


1.09 


MEDIUM 


Abell 2667 


0148990101 


0.2300 


7.7 


1.96 


21.9 


21.6 


1.48 


MEDIUM 


Abell 3827 


0149670101 


0.0984 


7.1 


2.02 


22.3 


22.4 


1.16 


MEDIUM 


Abell 39 11 


0149670301 


0.0965 


5.4 


1.77 


25.8 


26.1 


1.43 


THINl 


Abell 2034 


0149880101 


0.1130 


7.0 


1.99 


10.2 


10.5 


1.16 


THINl 


RXCJ0003.8+0203 


0201900101 


0.0924 


3.7 


1.47 


26.3 


26.6 


1.10 


THINl 


RXCJ0020.7-2542 


0201900301 


0.1424 


5.7 


1.78 


14.8 


15.4 


1.02 


THINl 


RXCJ0049.4-2931 


0201900401 


0.1080 


3.3 


1.37 


19.2 


18.8 


1.28 


THINl 


RXCJ0547.6-3152 


0201900901 


0.1483 


6.7 


1.92 


23.3 


24.0 


1.12 


THINl 


RXCJ0605.8-3518 


0201901001 


0.1410 


4.9 


1.65 


18.0 


24.1 


1.07 


THINl 


RXCJ0645.4-5413 


0201901201 


0.1670 


7.1 


1.95 


10.9 


10.9 


1.11 


THINl 


RXCJ 1044.5-0704 


0201901501 


0.1323 


3.9 


1.47 


25.7 


25.9 


1.03 


THINl 


RXCJl 141.4-1216 


0201901601 


0.1195 


3.8 


1.46 


284 


28.6 


1.03 


THINl 


RXCJ1516.3+0005 


0201902001 


0.1183 


5.3 


1.73 


26.7 


26.6 


1.13 


THINl 


RXCJ1516.5-0056 


0201902101 


0.1150 


3.8 


1.46 


30.0 


30.0 


1.08 


THINl 


RXCJ2014.8-2430 


0201902201 


0.1612 


7.1 


1.96 


23.0 


23.4 


1.05 


THINl 


RXCJ2048. 1-1750 


0201902401 


0.1470 


5.6 


1.75 


24.6 


25.3 


1.07 


THINl 


RXCJ2149.1-3041 


0201902601 


0.1179 


3.3 


1.37 


25.1 


25.5 


1.11 


THINl 


RXCJ2218.6-3853 


0201903001 


0.1379 


6.4 


1.88 


20.2 


21.4 


1.11 


THINl 


RXCJ2234.5-3744 


0201903101 


0.1529 


8.6 


2.17 


18.9 


19.3 


1.31 


THINl 


RXCJ0645.4-5413 


0201903401 


0.1670 


8.5 


2.13 


11.5 


12.1 


1.51 


THINl 


RXCJ0958.3-1103 


0201903501 


0.1527 


6.1 


1.83 


8.3 


9.4 


1.16 


THINl 


RXCJ0303.8-7752 


0205330101 


0.2742 


7.5 


1.89 


11.7 


11.5 


1.18 


THINl 


RXCJ05 16.7-5430 


0205330301 


0.2952 


7.5 


1.87 


114 


11.7 


1.19 


THINl 



Notes: " redshift taken from the NASA Extragalactic Database; '' mean temperature in keV derived from our analysis; *■■ scale radius in Mpc 
derived from our analysis; " MOSl andM0S2 good exposure time inks; "^ intensity of residual soft protons (seeEq.[T); * excluded due to high 
residual soft proton contamination. 



Extragalactic Databasq^; krM and Ri^q are derived from our 
analysis (see Sect. |4|l. In Fig. [T]we report the cluster distribu- 
tion in the redshift-temperature space. The only selection effect 
we detect is the paucity of cool (krM ^ 5 keV) clusters at high 
(z > 0.2) redshift. Observations are performed with THINl and 
MEDIUM filters, as reported in Table |3l 



http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu 



3. Data analysis 

The preparation of spectra comprises the following major steps: 

- preliminary data processing; 

- good time interval (GTI) filtering to exclude periods of high 
soft proton flux; 

- filtering according to pattern and flag criteria; 

- excision of brightest point-like sources; 

- calculation of the "IN over OUT" ratio; 

- extraction of spectra in concentric rings. 

The spectral analysis is structured as follows: 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 





Vd 












• 








10 


- 




t 


• 
• 






• 


- 


1 1 


8 
















• 


> 


















CI) 














• 




• 


^ 




. • 


• 


Jf 


••• 

• 


• 


• 


• 
• 


'\ 


^ 


6 


• 


• 
• 


• 
• 

• 
• 


• 
• 




• 
• 


• 


■ 




4 




• 


• 










■ 




?. 


1 




. . 1 








■ 


. . 1 . 



0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 



Fig. 1. Distribution of selected clusters in the redshift- 
temperature space. We distinguish cool core (blue), non cool 
core (red) and uncertain (green) clusters, as defined in Sect. |6] 
There is no evidence of selection effects, except for a weak pos- 
itive correlation between redshift and temperature. 

- estimate of background parameters from a peripheral ring of 
the field of view; 

- spectral fitting using the Cash statistic and modeling the 
background, rather than subtracting it, as commonly done; 

- production of surface brightness, temperature, and metallic- 
ity profiles. 

All these points are described in detail in the following subsec- 
tions. 

In our analysis we use only EPIC-MOS data, because a ro- 
bust characterization of EPIC-pn background has not been possi- 
ble, mainly due to the small regions outside the field of view and 
to the non-negligible fraction of out of time events (for further 
details, see Appendix|B]i. Moreover, the EPIC-pn background is 
less stable than the EPIC-MOS one, especially below 2 keV. 

3.1. Spectra preparation 

3.1 .1 . Preliminary data preparation 

Observation data files (ODF) are retrieved from the XMM- 
Newton archive and processed in a standard way with the 
Science Analysis System (SAS) v6.1. 

The soft proton cleaning is performed using a double filter- 
ing process. We extract a light curve in 100 second bins in the 
10-12 keV energy band by excluding the central CCD, apply a 
threshold of 0.20 cts s ', produce a GTI file and generate the 
filtered event file accordingly. This first step allows to eliminate 
most flares, however softer flares may exist such that their contri- 
bution above 10 keV is negligible. We then extract a light curve 
in the 2-5 keV band and fit the histogram obtained from this 
curve with a Gaussian distribution. Since most flares have been 
rejected in the previous step, the fit is usually very good. We 
calculate the mean count rate, fj., and the standard deviation, cr, 
apply a threshold of jj. + 3cr to the distribution, and generate the 
filtered event file. 

After soft proton cleaning, we filter the event file accord- 
ing to PATTERN and FLAG criteria (namely PATTERN<12 and 
FLAG==0). In Table |3] we report the good exposure time after 
the soft proton cleaning; as mentioned in Sect. |2] we exclude 



14 




12 




-| 


10 




u 


8 






6 






4 




^ 




2 














10 80 30 40 50 60 
Exposure time [ks] 




1.0 1.2 1.4 1 



Fig. 2. Histograms of the frequency distribution for averaged 
MOS exposure time (left panel) and Rsb (right panel) values. 



observations for which the total (MOS 1 +MOS2) good exposure 
time is less than 16 ks. In the left panel of Fig. |2] we report the 
histogram of the frequency distribution for observation exposure 
times. 

When fitting spectra in the 0.7-10.0 keV band (see Sect. 13. 2b . 
we also exclude the "bright" CCDs, i.e. CCD-4 and CCD-5 for 
MOSl and CCD-2 and CCD-5 for MOS2 (see Appendix |A] for 
the discussion). 

Brightest point-like sources are detected, using a procedure 
based on the SAS task edetect_chain and excluded from the 
event file. We estimate a flux limit for excluded sources in the 
order of 10"'^ erg cm"^ s"' ; after the source excision, the cosmic 
variance of the X-ray background on the entire field of view is 
~ 20%. 



3.1.2. Quiescent soft proton contamination 

A quiescent soft proton (QSP) component can survive the dou- 
ble filtering process (see Sect. 13.1. Ti l. To quantify the amount of 
this component, we make u se of the "IN over OUT" diagnostic^ 
(iDe Luca & Moleridill2004l) . We measure the surface brightness, 
SBiN, in an outer region of the field of view, where the cluster 
emission is negligible, and compare it to the surface brightness, 
SBouT, calculated outside the field of view in the same energy 
range (i.e. 6-12 keV). Since soft protons are channeled by the 
telescope mirrors inside the field of view and the cosmic ray in- 
duced background covers the whole detector, the ratio 



^SB - 



5BiN 

SBquj 



(1) 



is a good indicator of the intensity of residual soft protons and is 
used for background modeling (see Sect. l3.2.2l and AppendixlBJi. 
In Table|3]we report the values of /?sb for each observation; they 
roughly span the range between 1 .0 (negligible contamination) 
and 1.5 (high contamination). The typical uncertainty in mea- 
suring RsB is a few percent. In the right panel of Fig. |2] we re- 
port the frequency distribution for /?sb values. Since the obser- 
vation 0084230401 of Abell 267 is extremely poUuted by QSP 
{RsB = 1-8), we exclude it from the sample. 

3.1.3. Spectra accumulation 

The cluster emission is divided in 10 concentric rings (namely 
0'-0.5', 0.5'-l', l'-1.5', 1.5'-2', 2'-2.75', 2.75'-3.5', 3.5'-4.5', 



^ A public script is available at http://x mm.vilspa.esa.es/extemal/| 
xmm_sw_cal/background/epic_scripts.shtmI 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 



4.5'-6', 6'-8', and 10'-12')- The center of the rings is determined 
by surface brightness isocontours at large radii and is not neces- 
sarily coincident with the X-ray emission peak. We prefer that 
azimuthal symmetry be preserved at large radii, where we are 
interested in characterizing profiles, at the expense of central re- 
gions. 

For each instrument (i.e MOSl and MOS2) and each ring, 
we accumulate a spectrum and generate an effective area (ARF); 
for each observation we generate one redistribution function 
(RMF) for MOSl and one for MOS2. We perform a minimal 
grouping to avoid channels with no counts, as required by the 
Cash statistic. 

3.2. Spectral analysis 

Spectral fitting is performed within the XSPEC vl 1.3 packagqj- 
The choice of the energy band for the spectral fitting is not triv- 
ial. We fit spectra in the 0.7-lO.OkeV and in the 2.0-10.0 keV en- 
ergy bands, by using the Cash statistic, with an absorbed thermal 
plus background model. The high energy band has the advantage 
of requiring a simplified background model (see Appendices lAl 
andlB); however, the bulk of source counts is excluded and the 
statistical quality of the measurement is substantially reduced. 
Due to the paucity of source counts, there is a strong degen- 
eracy between source temperature and normalization, and the 
temperature is systematically underestimated; therefore, when 
using t he 2.0-10.0 keV band, an " a posteriori" correction is re- 
quired (iLeccardi & Molendill200 7'). On the contrary, in the 0.7- 
10.0 keV band, the statistical quality of the data is good, but the 
background model is more complicated and background com- 
ponents are less stable and affected by strong degeneracy (see 
Appendices lAl and iBl). We exclude the band below 0.7 keV be- 
cause the shape of the internal background is very complicated 
and variable with time and because the source counts reach their 
maximum at « 1 keV. Hereafter, all considerations are valid for 
both energy bands, unless otherwise stated. 

In conditions of poor statisti cs (i.e. few counts/bin) and high 
background, the Cash statistic (iCashll 19791) is more suitable than 
the y ^ with reasonable channel grouping (Leccardi & MolenJj 
l2007h . The Cash statistic requires the number of counts in each 
channel to be greater than zero ( ICashlll979l) : thus, the back- 
ground cannot be subtracted. In our case the total background 
model is the sum of many components, each one character- 
ized by peculiar temporal, spectral, and spatial variations (see 
AppendixlBj; when subtracting the background, the information 
on single components is lost. Conversely, background modeling 
allows to preserve the information and to manage all components 
appropriately. Moreover, we recall that the background model- 
ing does not require strong channel grouping, error propagation, 
or renormalization factors. 



3.2.1. Estimate of background parameters 

To model the background, a careful characterization of all its 
components is mandatory. Ideally, one would like to estimate 
background parameters in the same region and at the same time 
as the source. Since this is not possible, we estimate background 
parameters in the external 10'- 12' ring and rescale them in the 
inner rings, by making reasonable assumptions on their spatial 
distribution tested by analyzing blank field observations (see 
Appendix iBb. The 10'-12' ring often contains a weak cluster 
emission that, if neglected, may cause a systematic underesti- 



mate of temperature and normalization in the inner rings (see 
Sect. |5.1.2| i. In this ring the spectral components in the 0.7- 
10.0 keV band are: 

- the thermal emission from the cluster (GCL), 

- the emission from the Galaxy Halo (HALO), 

- the cosmic X-ray background (CXB), 

- the quiescent soft protons (QSP), 

- the cosmic ray induced continuum (NXB), 

- the fluorescence emission lines; 

the HALO component is negligible when considering the 2.0- 
10.0 keV range. The model is the same used when analyzing 
blank field observations (see AppendixiBJfor further details) plus 
a thermal component for the GCL. 

We fixed most parameters (namely all except for the nor- 
malization of HALO, CXB, NXB, and fluorescence lines) to re- 
duce the degeneracy due to the presence of different components 
with similar spectral shapes. All cluster parameters are fixed: 
the temperature, kT, and the normalization, A^s, are extrapolated 
from the final profiles through an iterative procedure; the metal- 
licity , Z, is fixed to 0.2 s olar ( the solar abundances are taken 
from lAnders & Grevessd ( Il989l) ) and the redshift, z, is fixed to 
the optical value. The QSP normalization, A^qsp, is calculated 
from Rs,B (see Appendix [B) and fixed. Minor discrepancies in 
shape or normalization with respect to the real QSP spectrum 
are possible; the model accounts for them by slightly changing 
the normalization of other components, i.e. A^halo, Ncxb, and 
A^NXB (for the discussion of the systematic effects related to QSP 
see Sects. |5X3] and |5X3] l. 

Summarizing, in the 10'- 12' ring we determine the range of 
variability, [A^min,A^max], (i-e. the best fit value +lcr uncertainty) 
for the normalization of the main background components, i.e. 
A^HALO, Ncxb, and A^nxb- Once properly reseated, this informa- 
tion allows us to constrain background parameters in the inner 
rings. 

3.2.2. Spectral fit in concentric rings 

We fit spectra in internal rings with the same model adopted in 
the 10'-12' ring case (see Sect. 13. 2. It . In Fig.|3]we compare spec- 
tra and best fit models for two different regions of the same clus- 
ter; in the inner ring (I'-l.S') source counts dominate, while in 
the outer ring (4.5'-6') background counts dominate. 

The equivalent hydrogen column density along the 
line of sight, A^h, is fi xed to the 21 cm measurement 
(iDickev & Loc kman 1990). Since clusters in our sample are at 
high galactic latitude (\b\ > 20°), the A^h is < 10^' cm"^ and 
the absorption effect is negligible above 1 keV. We always leave 
the temperature, kr, and the normalization, A^s, free to vary; the 
metallicity is free below » 0.4 /^igo and fixed to 0.2 solar be- 
yond; the redshift is allowed to vary between ±7% of the optical 
measurement in the two innermost rings and, in the other rings, 
is fixed to the average value of the first two rings. 

A^HALO, Ncxb, and A^nxb for the inner rings are obtained by 
reseating the best-fit values in the 10'- 12' ring (see Sect. 13.2.1b 
by the area ratio and the correction factor, K(r), obtained from 
blank field observations (see Table IB. 2l in AppendixlBli: 



N" 



^ext^ 



Area" 
Area''- 



xK(r) 



(2) 



N" 



and A^" 



'' http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/xspec 11/index.html 



for NXB K = 1 for all rings. N^ 

free to vary within a certain range: the lower (upper) limit of 

this range is derived by reseating the best-fit value minus (plus) 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 



> 



o 
U 





"t, 


' 1 


(t*itiV 


A t± , 





■ 








) in 


rfV%u 




■ 


d 








\^ 


Mik . 


- 


o 
d 


r 






A /I 


\ 


- 


o 


i. - 


. 1 


— 


I. 


\ 


5 



10 



Energy (keV) 



M ^ 



c 

3 

O 

U 







' 1 










■ 


d 

o 
d 


h 


'■u 




^ 




% 


f^ 


1 


r 


. 1 






\ 




- 



10 



Energy (keV) 



Fig.3. Spectra and best fit models for the I'-l.S' (left) and the 4.5'-6' (right) rings of Abell 1689. The sohd thick and the dotted 
thick lines represent respectively the thermal and the total background model. The solid thin line represents the total (i.e. thermal + 
background) model. In the inner ring source counts dominate background ones, in the outer the opposite is true. 



the Icr-error calculated in the 10'-12' ring. The local back- 
ground should have a variation length scale of some degrees 
JSnowden et al.l [l997h : conversely, A^cxb may have large (i.e. 
20-100%) variations between diff'erent rings due to the cosmic 
variance. However, extensive simulations show that these sta- 
tistical fluctuations do not introduce systematics in the tem- 
perature measurement, when averaging on a large sample (see 
Sect. 15.1. 11 1. A^Qsp is obtained by rescaling the value adopted 
in the 1 0'- 12^ ring by the area ratio and by the QSP vignetting 
profile (lKuntzll2006) : A^Qgp is fixed for all rings. Normalizations 
of instrumental fluorescence emission lines are left free to vary 
within a limited range determined from the analysis of closed 
observations and have an almost negligible impact on our mea- 
surements. 

For each ring, when using the 0.7-10.0 keV energy band, 
we determine kT, Z, and A^s best fit values and one sigma un- 
certainties for each MOS and calculate the weighted average. 
Conversely, when using the 2.0-10. OkeV band, we combine tem- 
perature measurements from different instruments as described 
in our previous paper JLeccardi & Moleiidil l2007l) . to correct 
for the bias which affects the temperature estimator. In the 0.7- 
10.0 keV band there are much more source counts, the temper- 
ature estimator is much less biased and the weighted average 
returns a slightly (^ 3% in an outer ring) biased value (see the 
F = 1.0 case in Sect. lSTT] ). 

Finally, we produce surface brightness (i.e. normalization 
over area), temperature, and metallicity profiles for each cluster. 



4. The temperature profiles 

Clusters in our sample have different temperatures and redshifts, 
therefore it is not trivial to identify one (or more) parameters 
that indicate the last ring where our temperature measurement is 
reliable. We define an indicator, /, as the source-to-background 
count rate ratio calculated in the energy band used for the spec- 
tral fitting. For each observation we calculate / for each ring: 
the higher is /, the more important is the source contribution, 
the more reliable is our measurement in this particular ring. / 
is affected by an intrinsic bias, i.e. upward statistical fluctua- 
tions of the temperature are associated to higher / (because of 
the difference in spectral shape between source and background 
models); therefore, near to a threshold, the mean temperature 



H 
a 






1.5 



1.0 



=^pp jn 


1 




— 


in: 'm 




: :_ 


^ 


T 


- 



0.5 - 



0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 

Fig. 4. Radial temperature profiles for all clusters in our sample 
rescaled by Riao and kT^M. 



results slightly overestimated. This systematic is almost negligi- 
ble when considering the whole sample, but it may appear when 
analyzing a small number of objects. We note that, although 
present, this effect does not affect results obtained when dividing 
the whole sample in subsamples (e.g. Sects. [031 and l672] i. 

In Fig.|4]we show the radial temperature profiles for all clus- 
ters of our sample by setting a lower limit Iq = 0.6; spectra are 
fitted in the 0.7-10.0 keV band. Each profile is rescaled by the 
cluster mean temperature, krM, computed by fitting the profile 
with a constant after the exclusion of the core region (i.e. for 
R > 0.1 Rm))- The radius is rescaled by Rmo, i.e. the radius 
encompassing a spherical density contrast of 180 with respect to 
the critical density. We compute R^) from the mean temperature 
and the redshift (Arnaud et al. 2005,); 



,1/2 



^180 = 1780 I ^^j Kz)-' kpc, 



(3) 



where h(z) = (fim(l + z)^ + Qa)''^- ^iso is a good approx- 
imation to the virial radius in an Einstein-De Sitter universe 
and has been largely used to rescale cluster radial properties 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 




0.01 0.02 0.03 

R(o)/Ri8o 



0.04 




0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 
R/Riao 



Fig. 5. Temperature vs. radius for the innermost ring respec- 
tively scaled by krM and Rm)- Clusters for which the temper- 
ature is significantly (at least 3cr) lower than kT^M are defined as 
cool cores (blue circles); those for which the temperature pro- 
file does not significantly (at least 2cr) decrease are defined as 
non cool cores (red circles); other clusters, whose membership 
is not clearly determined, are classified as uncertain (green cir- 
cles). When considering z > 0.2 clusters, which fill the right-side 
of the panel, we expect smaller gradients due to the lower spatial 
resolution. 



JDe Grandi & Molendil 120021; IVikhUnin et all l2005h . We then 
choose 180 as over-density for comparing our results with pre- 
vious works (see Sect 16. 6t , even if in the current adopted cos- 
mology the virial radius encloses a spherical density contrast of 
^ 100 (E ke et al. 1998) . 

The profiles show a clear decline beyond » 0.2 Ri^o and our 
measurements extend out to x; 0.6 Rmo- The large scatter of val- 
ues is mostly of statistical origin, however a maximum likeli- 
hood test shows that, when excluding the region below 0.2 Rmo, 
our profiles are characterized by a 6% intrinsic dispersion, which 
is comparable with our systematics (see Sect. 15.31 1. therefore the 
existence of a universal cluster temperature profile is still an 
open issue. The scatter in the inner region is mostly due to the 
presence of both cool core and non cool core clusters, but also to 
our choice of preserving the azimuthal symmetry at large radii 
(see Sect. 13.1.3b . In Fig. |5] we report temperature and radius of 
the innermost ring scaled by krM and Rm) for all clusters. We 
define cool core (hereafter CC) clusters, those for which the tem- 
perature is significantly (at least 3cr) lower than kT^M, non cool 
core (hereafter NCC) clusters, those for which the temperature 
profile does not significantly (at least 2cr) decrease, and uncer- 
tain (hereafter UNC) clusters, those for which the membership 
is not clearly determined. 

It is worth noting that the error bars are usually strongly 
asymmetric, i.e. the upper bar is larger than the lower; moreover, 
the higher the temperature, the larger the error bars. The reason is 
that most of the information on the temperature is located around 
the energy of the exponential cut-off; due to the spectral shapes 
of source and background components and to the sharp decrease 
of the effective areas at high energies, the source-to-background 
count rate ratio strongly depends on the energy band (see for ex- 
ample Fig. |3]l, i.e. the higher the cut-off energy, the lower the 
source-to-background ratio, the larger the uncertainties. 



Fig. 6. Mean radial temperature profile rescaled by Rm) and 
krM- The dotted lines show the one-sigma scatter of the values 
around the average. 



In Fig. |6] we report the weighted average and the scatter of 
all profiles shown in Fig.|4] The mean profile shows more clearly 
the decline beyond 0.2 Rmo. The temperature also decreases to- 
ward the center because of the presence of cool core clusters. 

5. Evaluation of systematic effects 

We carefully check our results, searching for possible system- 
atic effects. Prior to the analysis, we make use of extensive sim- 
ulations to quantify the impact of different spectral components 
on a simulated temperature profile ("a priori" tests). After the 
analysis, we investigate how the measured temperature profile 
changes, when choosing different key parameters ("a posteriori" 
tests). 

5. 1 . "A priori" tests 

We perform simulations that reproduce as closely as possible our 
analysis procedure. We consider two rings: the external 10'-12', 
^ext, where we estimate background parameters, and the 4.5'- 
6', Rial, where we measure the temperature. The exposure time 
for each spectrum is always 20 ks i.e. a representative value for 
our sample (see Fig. |2]l. We use the Abell 1689 EPIC-MOSl 
observation as a guideline, for producing RMF and ARF, and 
for choosing typical input parameters. The simulation procedure 
is structured as follows: 

- choice of reasonable input parameters, 

- generation of 300 spectra in /?ext, 

- generation of 500 spectra in Rim, 

- estimate of background parameters in /?ext, 

- rescaling background parameters and fitting spectra in Rim. 

Simulation details are described in each subsection. We test the 
effect of the cosmic variance (see Sect. 15.1. It , of an inaccurate 
estimate of the cluster emission in /?ext (see Sect. |5.1.2t , and of 
the QSP component (see Sect. l5.1.3] l. All results are obtained by 
fitting spectra in the 0.7-10.0 keV band. We have also conducted 
a similar analysis for the 2.0-10.0 keV band and have found that 
the systematics for the two bands are of the same order of mag- 
nitude. We recall however that the hard band is characterized 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 







' 
















• 


■ 


0.1 


• kT 

Ns 


0.0 










; 










. 








• 




; 






o 






; 


0.1 




• 

1 


1 


1 


: 



0.7 



1.0 

F 



1.3 



and the normalization, A^s (empty circles). A positive fluctuation 
of CXB normalization (i.e. F = 1.3) returns higher tempera- 
ture and normalization, because the excess of counts due to the 
CXB is modeled by the thermal component, which is steeper 
than the CXB power law. For the F = 1.0 case, while A^s re- 
turns exactly the input value, kr returns a slightly (^ 3%) un- 
derestimated value, probably due to the bias on the temperature 
estimator (Leccardi & Molendi 2007). The effect of the cosmic 
variance is roughly symmetric on both kr and A^s, therefore it 
is almost negligible when averaging on a large sample. We also 
perform simulations for our worst case, i.e. / = 0.6 (see Sect.|4]i, 
and find qualitatively the same results: for the F - l.O case, the 
bias on the temperature is x; 8% rather than » 3% and the bias 
on the normalization is negligible. 



5.1.2. The cluster emission in tine 10'-12' ring 



Fig. 7. Relative differences between measured and input values 
for the source temperature, kr, and normalization, A^s, as a func- 
tion of the factor F, which simulates the fluctuation due to the 
cosmic variance (see text for details). Uncertainties are smaller 
than the circle size. 30% fluctuations cause » 10% variations in 
kr and A^s- For a positive/negative fluctuation the measured kr 
and A^s are higher/lower than the input values. 



by worst statistics, therefore in this case systematic errors are 
masked by statistical ones and have a smaller impact on the final 
measurement. 



5.1 .1 . Tine cosmic variance 

We employ a simulation to quantify the effect of the cosmic vari- 
ance on temperature and normalization measurements. In this 
simulation we neglect the soft proton contribution; the back- 
ground components are the HALO, the CXB, and the NXB 
and they are modeled as for MOS 1 in Appendix |B] In /?ext 
there are only background components, while in Rim there is 
also the thermal source. NormalizatiorQ input values in R^xt are: 
^HALO = 1-6 X 10-4, A^extg = 5.0 X 10-2, and N^^^j^ = 1.0 x 10"^; 
input values in Rim are obtained by rescaling the values in /?ext 
by the area ratio (i.e. as in Eq. |2] with K{r) - 1.0). A^cxb is 
also multiplied by a factor, F, that simulates the fluctuation due 
to the cosmic variance between R\„i and /?ext; after the excision 
of brightest point-like sources (see Sect. 13.1. Tj ), Icr fluctuations 
are expected to be * 30%. We then consider 3 cases: a null 
{F = 1.0), a positive (F - 1.3), and a negative (F = 0.7) fluc- 
tuation. Thus, in the first case the input value for CXB in Rim is 
equal to that rescaled by the area ratio, in the second it is 30% 
higher, and in the third 30% lower Input parameters for the ther- 
mal model in Ri^t are: kr = 6 keV, Z = 0.2 Zq, z = 0.2, and 
A's = 7.0 X 10 "*. In 7?ext, Z and z are fixed to the input values, 
while kr and A^s are free. For this particular choice of the pa- 
rameters, the source-to-background count rate ratio, /, is 1.13 
(see SectlH. As explained in Sects. [TSTI and [3.2.21 we deter- 
mine the ranges of variability for A^halo, Ncxb, and A^nxb and 
rescale them in Ri^t; then we fit spectra in the 0.7-10.0 keV band 
and calculate the weighted averages of kr and A^s over the 500 
simulations. 

In Fig. |7] we show the relative differences between mea- 
sured and input values for the temperature, kr (filled circles). 



Normalization values are always reported in XSPEC units 



The source contribution in the 10'- 12' ring, which mainly de- 
pends on cluster redshift and emission measure, is diflicult to es- 
timate with accuracy. We employ a simulation to determine how 
an inaccurate estimate could affect our measurement of cluster 
temperature, kr, and normalization, A^s- Soft protons are ne- 
glected in this case too; background components and their in- 
put values are the same as for the F - 1.0 case of the cos- 
mic variance tests (see Sect. 15. Lit . Also input parameters for 
the thermal model in Ri^t are the same as in that case, instead 
in /?ext are kT""' = 4 keV, Z'='" = 0.2 Zg, z'='" = 0.2, and 
A^j"' = 2.5 X lO""*. For this particular choice of the parame- 
ters, the source-to-background count rate ratio, /, is 1.13 (see 
SectlDl. When fitting spectra in /?ext, all thermal parameters are 
fixed: namely the temperature, the metallicity, and the redshift 
are fixed to the input values, while for A^^"' we consider 4 cases. 
In the first case, we neglect the source contribution (A^g"' = 0); 
in the other cases, the normalization is fixed to a value lower 
(A^l"' = 1.0 X lO-'*), equal (Nf = 2.5 x lO"'*), and higher 
(A^™' = 4.0 X 10""*) than the input value. Normalizations of all 
background components (namely A^halo, Nqxb, and A^nxb) are 
free parameters. For each case, we compute the weighted aver- 
age of A^HALO, Ncxb, and A^nxb over the 300 spectra in /?ext and 
compare them to the input values (see Fig.[8]l. A^nxb and A^^"' are 
weakly correlated; instead, A^halo and, in particular, A^cxb show 
a strong negative correlation with the input value for A^™', which 
depends on their spectral shapes. Note that, if we correctly esti- 
mate A^g"' then A^halo, Ncxb, and A^nxb converge to their input 
values. 

For each input value of A^™' in /?ext, we fit spectra in Rint in 
the 0.7-10.0 keV band after the usual rescaling of background 
parameters (see Sect. |3.2.2| i, calculate the weighted averages of 
the source temperature, kr, and normalization, A^s, over the 500 
simulations, and compare them to the input values (see Fig. |9]l. 
Values of kr and A^s measured in Rim show a positive correla- 
tion with the value of A^™' fixed in 7?ext- This is indeed expected 
because of the broad similarity in the spectral shapes of thermal 
and CXB models. In 7?ext an overestimate of N^''^ implies an un- 
derestimate of A^cxB (see Fig. [SJ; A^cxb is then rescaled by the 
area ratio, thus is underestimated in Rim too; this results in an 
overestimate of kr and A^s in ^int, as for the F - 1.3 case of 
the cosmic variance simulations (see Sect. |5.1.T] l. Typical uncer- 
tainties (» 50%) on A^' cause systematic 5% and 7% errors on 
kr and A^s (see Fig. |9j. Note that, after the correction for the 
w 3% bias mentioned in Sect. 15.1.11 the effect on A^s and kr is 
symmetric; thus, when averaging on a large sample, the effect 
on the mean profile should be almost negligible. Note also that 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 





0.4 


o 








- 




n HALO 


<0 

o 

c 


0.2 


D 


o 




O CXB 

A NXB 


- 






■f! 






D 








> 

to 

"a 


0.0 












A 


A 




D 






-0.2 


1 


1 


1 


O 


- 



0.0 



1.0 



N, 



2.5 
X 10* 



4.0 



Fig. 8. Relative differences between measured and input val- 
ues for the normalization of background components (namely 
^HALOi -^cxB- and A^nxb) as a function of the input value for 
cluster normalization in 7?ext, A^^"'- Uncertainties are smaller than 
the symbol size. A^cxb shows the strongest (negative) correlation 
withA^I"'. 







' 


' 




. 




- 








^ 


0.1 


• kT 






O Ns 




o 


■ 


0.0 




• 


• 


«--- 


-- 


-0.1 




o 






■ 



0.0 



1.0 



2.5 



4.0 



Fig. 9. Relative differences between measured and input values 
for the source temperature, kT, and normalization, A^s, as a func- 
tion of the input value for cluster normalization in /?ext, A^^"'- 
Uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size. An underesti- 
mate/overestimate of A^l"' causes kT and A^s to be underesti- 
mated/overestimated. 



if we were to neglect the cluster emission in the 10' -12' ring 
(A^l"' = 0), we would cause a systematic underestimate of kT 
and A^s in the order of 7-10% (see Fig.|9l). 

In a real case we deal with a combination of fluctuations and 
cannot treat each one separately, thus we employ a simulation to 
investigate how fluctuations with different origins combine with 
each other We combine effects due to the cosmic variance and to 
an inaccurate estimate of the cluster emission in the 10'- 12' ring, 
by considering the F - 0.7, F - 1.0, and F = 1.3 cases men- 

1.0 X 10-^ A??' = 2.5 X 10-^ 



tioned in Sect. 15. 1.1 1 and A^^"' 



and A^l"' = 4.0 x 10 '^ mentioned in this section. The simula- 
tion procedure is the same as described before. For the cluster 



normaUzation, we find that fluctuations combine in a linear way 
and that effects are highly symmetric with respect to the zero 
case (F = 1.0 for the cosmic variance and A^^"' = 2.5 x lO"** for 
the cluster emission in the 10'-12' ring). For the cluster temper- 
ature, we find again the s; 3% bias related to the estimator; once 
accounted for this 3% offset, results are roughly similar to those 
found for the normalization case. To be more quantitative, when 
averaging on a large sample, the expected systematic on the tem- 
perature measurement is ^ 3% due to the biased estimator and 
< 2% due to deviations from the linear regime. 



5.1.3. The QSP component 

A careful characterization of the QSP component is crucial for 
our data analysis procedure. We employ a simulation to quantify 
how an incorrect estimate of the QSP contribution from the "IN 
overOUT"diagnostic, i.e. the.RsB = 1.10 (see Sect. 13 . 1 .2] l could 
affect our measurements. The spectral components and their in- 
put values are the same as for the F - l.O case of the cosmic 
variance simulations (see Sect. 15. Lit , plus the QSP component 
in both rings. The model for QSP is the same as described in 
Appendix IbI We choose two input values for A^qsp correspond- 
ing to a standard (Rsb = 1.10) and a high (Rs,b - 1.40) level of 
QSP contamination. For these particular choices of the param- 
eters, the source-to-background count rate ratio, /, is 1.06 for 
Rsb = 110 and 0.77 for Rsb = 1-40 (see Sectgli. For each input 
value we consider 2 cases: an underestimate (Rsb = 1.05 - 1.35) 
and an overestimate (Rsb - 1-15 - 1.45) of the correct value. 
By fitting spectra in /?ext in the 0.7-10.0 keV band, we determine 
the range of variability of A^halo, Ncxb, and A^nxb and rescale it 
in Rint (see Sect. 13.2.2b . We then fit spectra in Rim and compare 
the weighted averages of cluster temperature, kT, and normal- 
ization, A^s, to their input values (see Fig.fTOli. 

When considering A^s, the relative difference between mea- 
sured and input values is < 5% for all cases and the effect is sym- 
metric, therefore the impact on the mean profile obtained from a 
large sample should be very small. On the contrary, kT strongly 
depends on our estimate of the QSP component: the relative dif- 
ference is «i 5% for Rsb = 1.10 and « 20% for Rsb = 1-40. 
When overestimating Rsb, i^T is underestimated, because of the 
broad similarity in the spectral shapes of the two components. 
In the Rsb - 1 -40 case, the values corresponding to an overes- 
timate and an underestimate, although symmetric with respect 
to zero, are characterized by different uncertainties (errors in the 
first case are twice than in the second); thus, a weighted average 
returns a 10% underestimated value. 



5.2. "A posteriori" tests 

In this subsection we investigate how the mean profile is affected 
by a particular choice of key parameters, namely: the last ring for 
which we measure a temperature (see Sect. 15.2.1b . the energy 
band used for the spectral fitting (see Sect. 15.2.2b . and the QSP 
contamination (see Sect. |5.2.3] l. 



5.2.1. The truncation radius 

In Sect. |4] we have introduced the indicator / to choose the last 
ring where our temperature measurement is reliable. Here we 
produce mean temperature profiles by averaging all measure- 
ments for which / > /q, for different values of the threshold 
/q. In Fig.[TT]we report the profiles obtained in the 0.7-10.0 keV 
band for different choices of /o (namely 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 



10 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 





- 




' 


• 


; 


<u 

u 
OJ 

t-l 

^ 0.1 


• 


kT 

Ns 






(1) 

> 

CO 

v 0.0 






• 


O 


; 








1 


; 



1.10 1.40 

input Rgg 



0.0 
0.1 


:-- 


• 


; 


0.2 


- 


• kT 

O N3 


• 








1 



1.10 



1.40 



input RgB 



Fig. 10. Relative differences between measured and input val- 
ues for the source temperature, kT, and normalization, A^s, as 
a function of the input value for the QSP contribution, Rsb- 
Uncertainties are smaller than the circle size. Upper panel: /?sb 
is underestimated to 1 .05 and 1 .35 with respect to 1.10 and 1 .40. 
Lower panel: R^b is overestimated to 1.15 and 1.45. See text for 
the discussion. 



1.0 


-«►-«»- 






0.8 


m- 


>t 




- 


s 


• T 


^ 

^ 




-hJ 


U 




S 0.6 


=^ 1 


r 




0.0 


0.6 




0.4 


0.2 


— f — 
0.8 


- 




0.4 


1.0 • 


i= 


0.2 




1 ... 1 ... 1 ... 1 





0.0 



0.2 



0.4 0.6 

I^/Rieo 



0.8 



Fig. 11. Mean temperature profiles computed by choosing differ- 
ent values for the threshold /q (defined in Sect. |4]i plotted with 
different colors. There is a clear systematic effect: the smaller 
the threshold, the steeper the profile. The radii have been slightly 
offset in the plot for clarity. 



1.1 
1.0 
0.9 



H 
a 



H 0.8 



0.7 



0.6 



:-4- 


• 0.7-10.0 
;: 2.0-10.0 


keV : 
keV J 


r 




^ 


r 




1 






1 ." 



0.0 0.1 



0.2 0.3 0.4 



0.5 0.6 0.7 



Fig. 12. Mean temperature profiles obtained by fitting spectra in 
the 0.7-10.0 keV (filled circles) and in the 2.0-10.0 keV band 
(empty circles). The profiles are very similar, except for the in- 
nermost point. The radii have been slightly offset in the plot for 
clarity. 



and 1.0). As expected, the smaller is the threshold, the further 
the mean profile extends. If we focus on the points between 0.3 
and 0.6 of /?i8o, we notice a clear systematic effect: the smaller 
the threshold, the lower the temperature. This means that, on 
average, the temperature is lower in those rings where the back- 
ground is more important. This systematic effect becomes ev- 
ident where cluster emission and background fluctuations are 
comparable and is probably related to small imperfections in 
our background modeling and to the bias on the temperature es- 
timator (see Sect. 15.1.11 ). The imperfections of our background 
model becomes the dominant effect for small values of / (namely 
/ < 0.4). Thus, under a certain threshold, /q, our measurements 
are no longer reliable. Fig. [TTI shows that Iq = 0.6 represents a 
good compromise. Indeed, when considering the region between 
0.4 and 0.5 of R^) and comparing the average value for kr ob- 
tained for a threshold /q = 0.6 and for /o = 1 0, we find a small 
(4% ±3%) relative difference. 



5.2.2. Fitting in different bands 

We have fitted spectra in two different energy bands (i.e. 0.7- 
10.0 keV and 2.0-10.0 keV), each one characterized by different 
advantages and drawbacks (see Sect. 13.21 ). The indicator, /, de- 
fined in Sect. |4] depends on the band in which the count rate 
is calculated: more precisely, 7(0.7-10.0) is roughly 1.5 times 
greater than 7(2.0-10.0) for small values (i.e. 7 < 2.0). The 
threshold 7o = 0.6 in the 0.7-10.0 keV band corresponds to 
7o = 0.4 in the 2.0-10.0 keV band (see Sect. \52l}) . In Fig. [12] 
we compare the mean temperature profile obtained in the 0.7- 
10.0 keV band (7o = 0.6) with that obtained in the 2.0-10.0 keV 
band (7o = 0.4). The profiles are very similar, except for the in- 
nermost point. The uncertainties in the 0.7-10.0 case are much 
smaller at all radii, even if the total number of points (i.e. the 
number of rings for all cluster) is the same; this is because the 
higher statistics at low energies allows to substantially reduce 
the errors on single measurements. 

In the most internal point a high discrepancy between the 
two measurements is present, although in that region the back- 
ground is negligible. This is due to the superposition, along the 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 



11 



^ 
^ 



1.1 



1.0 



0.9 - 



0.8 



0.7 




• 1.00<Rsa<1.10 

• l.ll<RsB<1.16 

• 1.17<Rsg<1.30 

• 1.31<R,„<1.51 



0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 

1^/^180 

Fig. 13. Mean temperature profiles as a function of the QSP con- 
tamination, RsB- The four profiles are fully consistent, no corre- 
lation is found between the shape of the profiles and /?sb- The 
radii have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity. 



line of sight, of photons emitted by optically thin ICM with dif- 
ferent density and temperature. When looking at the center of 
cool core clusters, the line of sight intercepts regions character- 
ized by strong temperature gradients, therefore the accumulated 
spectrum is the sum of many components at different tempera- 
tures. In this case, the best fit value for the temperature strongly 
depends on the energy band (i.e. the harder the band, the higher 
the temperature), because the exclusion of the soft band implies 
the exclusion of most of the emission from cooler components 
JMazzotta et al.ll2004 . 

5.2.3. Contamination from QSP 

We divide clusters in our sample in four groups, according to the 
QSP contamination that we estimate from /?sb (see Sect. I3.1.2l i. 
In Fig. [T3] we report the mean temperature profiles for the four 
groups, by fitting spectra in the 0.7-10.0 keV band and fixing 
/o - 0.6. When dividing clusters in subsamples, we choose 
larger bin sizes to reduce the error bars. When /?sb is high, our 
selection criterion based on the source-to-background count rate 
ratio (see Sects.l4land l5.2.1l ) excludes the outer rings, indeed the 
red profile extends out to only 0.5 /^iso- The four profiles are 
fully consistent, no correlation is found between the shape of the 
profiles and 7?sb- The discrepancy in the innermost ring is due to 
the presence of a different number of cool core clusters in each 
group. We therefore conclude that the systematic error associ- 
ated to the QSP contamination is smaller than statistical errors 
(* 7% beyond 0.4 /Jiso). 



5.3. A budget for systematics 

In this subsection we summarize the main results for what con- 
cern systematic errors associated to our mean profile. We com- 
pare expected systematics computed from "a priori" tests with 
measured systematics from "a posteriori" tests. 

The F^l .O case in Sect. |5TT] and the A^g"' = 2.5 xlO"'^ case 
in Sect. 15.1.21 show that our analysis procedure is affected by a 
3% to 8% systematic underestimate of the temperature, when 
analyzing the outermost rings; the bias is probably related to 



the tem perature estimator as described in iLeccardi & Moleridil 
(12007). On the contrary the normalization estimator is unbiased. 
In Sects. l5J~n and l5T!2l we also found that the effects of the cos- 
mic variance and of an inaccurate estimate of the cluster emis- 
sion in the external ring are symmetric for both the temperature, 
kr, and the normalization, A^s- In Sect. 15.1.21 we found that the 
effects due to fluctuations with different origins combine in a lin- 
ear way and, when averaging on a large sample, the systematic 
associated to the mean profile is almost negligible for A^s and 
< 2% for kr. Thus, the expected systematic for kr is < 5%. 



In Sect. 15. 1.3] we found that, for a standard level of contam- 
ination (7?sB - 1-10), a typical 5% error in the estimate of 7?sb 
causes negligible effects on both measurements of cluster tem- 
perature and normalization. The same error causes negligible ef- 
fects on A^s measurements also for a high level of contamination 
(RsB - 1-40). On the contrary, effects on kr for /?sb = 1-40 are 
important: the same 5% error causes a 10% underestimate of kr, 
also when averaging on a large sample. However, at the end of 
Sect. I5.2."3] in particular from Fig. [T3] we have concluded that, 
when considering the whole sample, the systematic error asso- 
ciated to the QSP contamination is smaller than statistical errors 
(si 7% beyond 0.4 Rm)). The difference between expected and 
measured systematic errors is only apparent. Indeed, when an- 
alyzing our sample, we average measurements that span a wide 
range of values for /?sb and /; conversely, the 10% systematic 
error is expected for an unfavorable case, i.e. /?sb - 1-40 and 
/ = 0.77 (see Sect. |5X3]l. 



In Sect. 15.2. ll we compared the mean temperature value ob- 
tained for a threshold Iq = 0.6 and for Iq - 1.0 in an outer 
region (i.e. between 0.4 and 0.5 of Rm))- In this ring the mean 
value for the indicator / is 1.14, thus the expected bias related 
to the temperature estimator is « 3% (see Sect. 15.1.1b . We mea- 
sured a 4% ±3% temperature discrepancy, which is consistent 
with the expected bias. As pointed out in Sect. 15. 2. T] the discrep- 
ancy could also be due to small imperfections in our background 
model; we are not able to quantify the amount of this contribu- 
tion, but we expect it to be small when considering / > 0.6. 

To summarize, in external regions our measurements of the 
cluster temperature are affected by systematic effects, which 
depends on the radius through the factor /, i.e. the source-to- 
background count rate ratio. For each ring, we calculate the 
mean value for /, estimate the expected bias from simulations, 
and apply a correction to our mean profile. The expected bias is 
negligible for internal rings out to 0.30 Rmo (for which / > 3), is 
2-3% for 0.30-0.36 and 0.36-0.45 bins, and is * 5% for the last 
two bins (i.e. 0.45-0.54 and 0.54-0.70). We associate to our cor- 
rection an uncertainty of the same order of the correction itself, 
accounting for our limited knowledge from our "a posteriori" 
tests of the precise value of the bias. In Fig. [14] we show the 
mean temperature profile before and after the correction for the 
bias. In Table |4] we report for each bin the corrected values; the 
uncertainty is the quadrature sum of the statistical error and of 
the error associated to our correction. Hereafter, we will consider 
the mean profile corrected for the bias, unless otherwise stated. 
Note that the bias is always comparable with the statistical un- 
certainties. For this reason, ours can be considered as a definitive 
work, for what concerns the measurement of radial temperature 
profiles of galaxy clusters with XMM-Newton. We have reached 
the limits imposed by the instrument and by the analysis tech- 
nique, so that further increasing of the number of objects will 
not improve the quality of the measurement. 



12 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 



1.1 

1,0 
0.9 


' 1=1 


1 






i 


H 
^ 




^ 








1 


^ 0.8 








r 










0.7 










0.6 








.1.' 



0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 

1^/^180 



Normalization 
b i^ to 


; ., li 


0.5 
0.4 

^ 0.3 

c 

0.2 
0.1 


t 

■ 


t| 


' II J 



0.10 



0.15 



0.20 

Rmln/RlSO 



0.25 



0.30 



Fig, 14. Mean temperature profile rescaled by Riso and krM- For 
each ring, empty boxes and shaded regions indicate one sigma 
uncertainties respectively before and after the bias correction. 

Table 4. Mean temperature values rescaled by kT^ and cor- 
rected for the biases discussed in the text, for each interval in 
units of 7? 180- 



Ring" 



Temperature 



0.00-0.04 
0.04-0.08 
0.08-0.12 
0.12-0.18 
0.18-0.24 
0.24-0.30 
0.30-0.36 
0.36-0.45 
0.45-0.54 
0.54-0.70 



0.762±0.004 
0.921 ±0.005 
1.028±0.007 
1.030±0.008 
0.993±0.010 
0.985+0.014 
0.938±0.026 
0.878±0.035 
0.810±0.058 
0.694±0.069 



Notes: " in units of i^igo; * in units of kr^i. 

6. The mean temperature profile 

6. 1 . Characterizing fhe profile 

We fit profiles (see Fig. HI beyond 0.2 Rmo with a linear model 
and a power law to characterize the profile decline. By using a 
linear model 



i^=A-B^-0.2 



(4) 



we find A = 1.02 + 0.01 and B = 0.77 + 0.11; by using a power 
law 



kr 

krM 



N 



R 



0.2 R 



180 



(5) 



we find N = 1.03 + 0.01 and ii = 0.24 + 0.04. If the gas can be 
approximated by a poly trope, we can deri ve its index, y, from the 
slope of projected temperature profiles, // dPe Grandi & Molendil 
r2002h : 



r=i+/"/2, 



(6) 



under the assumption that, at large radii, three-dimensional gas 
temperature and density profiles be well described, respectively. 



Fig. 15. Power-law best-fit parameters obtained by fitting pro- 
files beyond a variable radius, Rmin, in units of Rm)- The nor- 
malization is calculated at 0.2. The index best-fit value is not 
constant with /?n,in, thus the ICM cannot be considered as a poly- 
trope. 



1.1 



H 
a 



1.0 



0.9 - 



0.8 



0.7 



1 


• 0.09<z<0.13 

• 0.13<z<0.17 ~: 

• 0.17<z<0.24 


X 1 1 


- 


: ^*" 1 


• 0.24<z<0.31 - 


■ 4 i 


1 




[^ J 


I 
1 


[ ^ 






T 


i 


1 1 1 1 1 . 


t 



0.0 0.1 



0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 
R/R180 



Fig. 16. Mean temperature profiles for the four z-binned groups 
of clusters. There is no indication of profile evolution. The radii 
have been slightly offset in the plot for clarity. 



by a power law and a yS-model with /3 = 2/3. For R > 0.2 Rm), 
we measure -y - 1.12 + 0.02, which is an intermediate value 
between those associated to isothermal (7=1 .0) and adiabatic 
iy - 1.67) gas. However, we note that the power-law best-fit 
parameters depend on the chosen region (see Fig.flSll. as well as 
the derived y, thus the above values should be taken with some 
caution. 



6.2. Redsliift evolution 

We divide our clusters in four groups according to the redshift, 
to investigate a possible evolution of temperature profiles with 
cosmic time. In Fig. [16] we report the mean temperature pro- 
files for the four groups. Spectra are fitted in the 0.7-10.0 keV 
band and /q - 0.6 (see Sect. |4|i. As in the following Sects. 16.31 
and 16.41 when dividing clusters in subsamples, the profiles are 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 



13 



1.1 



1.0 

0.5 
0.4 



" 0.2 
0.1 




0.10 



0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 



1.2 
1.1 






0.9 
0.8 
0.7 



• cc 

• UNC 

• NCC 



0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 



Fig. 17. Best fit parameters obtained by fitting each group of pro- 
files with a power law beyond 0.2 Rm)- The normalization is 
calculated at 0.2 ^i^o- The dashed lines indicate the best fit val- 
ues for the whole sample. No clear correlation is found between 
power-law parameters and the redshift. 



not corrected for biases (see Sect. I5.3l l, because when compar- 
ing subsamples we are not interested in determining the absolute 
value of the temperature, but in searching for relative differences. 
Moreover, in Fig.[T6land in Fig.[T8]we choose larger bin sizes to 
reduce the error bars (as in Fig. [TO] i. The four profiles are very 
similar: the discrepancy in the outer regions is comparable to sta- 
tistical and systematic errors, the diff'erence in the central region 
is due to a diff'erent fraction of cool core clusters. We fit each 
group of profiles with a power law beyond 0.2 7?igo and report 
results in Fig. [17] Since there is no clear correlation between the 
two parameters and the redshift, we conclude that from the anal- 
ysis of our sample there is no indication of profile evolution up 
toz = 0.3. 

6.3. Cool core and non cool core clusters 

In Sect, m we defined three groups: clusters that clearly host a 
cool core, clusters with no evidence of a cool core, and uncertain 
clusters. In Fig. [18] we show mean temperature profiles for the 
three groups. Spectra are fitted in the 0.7-10.0 keV band and 
Iq - 0.6. Profiles differ by definition in the core region and are 
consistent beyond » 0.1 Rm). 

6.4. REFL04 and LP07 subsamples 

Our sample is not complete with respect to any property. 
However, most of our clust ers (^ 2/3) belong to the REFLEX 
Cluster Survey catalog (B ohringer et al.l |2004|) . a statistically 
complete X-ray flux-limited sample of 447 galaxy clusters, and 
a dozen objects belong to the XMM-Newton Legacy Project sam- 
ple (Pratt et al. 2007), which is representative of an X-ray flux- 
limited sample with z < 0.2 and kr > 2 keV. We then se- 
lect two subsamples from our sample: clusters that belong to 
the REFLEX catalog (REFL04 subsample) and to the Legacy 
Project sample (LP07 subsample). The smaller (i.e. the LP07) 
is derived from Pratt's parent sample, by applying our selection 
criteria based on cluster temperature and redshift. We also ex- 
clude cluster observations that are heavily affected by soft proton 



Fig. 18. Mean temperature profiles for cool core (blue), non cool 
core (red), and uncertain (green) clusters. Profiles differ by defi- 
nition in the core region and are consistent in the outer regions. 



1.1 



1.0 



0.9 

s 

^ 0.8 



0.7 



0.6 



^^ 




0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 
R/^iao 



0.7 



Fig. 19. Mean temperature profiles obtained from the LP07 sub- 
sample (blue triangles), the REFL04 subsample (red squares) 
and the whole sample (green circles). The three profiles are fully 
consistent in the outer regions. The radii have been sUghtly offset 
in the plot for clarity. 



contamination, however the latter selection should be equivalent 
to a random choice and introduce no bias. Thus, we expect the 
LP07 subsample to be representative of an X-ray flux-limited 
sample of galaxy clusters with 0.1 < z < 0.2 and kr > 3.3 keV. 
The larger (i.e. the REFL04) subsample includes the LP07 one. 
Clusters that belong to the REFL04, but not to the LP07, were 
observed with XMM-Newton for different reasons, they are not 
part of a large program and almost all observations have differ- 
ent Pis. Thus, there are no obvious reasons to believe that the 
sample is significantly biased with respect to any fundamental 
cluster property. A similar reasoning leads to the same conclu- 
sion for our whole sample. 

In Fig. [19] we compare mean temperature profiles obtained 
from the two subsamples and the whole sample. The three pro- 
files are fully consistent beyond w 0.1 ^igo, the difference in the 
central region is due to a different fraction of CC clusters. These 



14 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 





0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 

1^/^180 



0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 
R/Rieo 



Fig. 20. Comparison between our observed mean p rofile (circles) 
and t hat derived from hydrodynamic simulations (Borga ni et alj 
12004^ by averaging over clusters with kr > 3 keV (solid fine). 
The dashed line is obtained by rescaling the solid one by 10%. 



results allow us to conclude that our whole sample is representa- 
tive of hot, intermediate redshift clusters with respect to temper- 
ature profiles, i.e. the quantity we are interested in. 



Fig. 21. Upper panel: mean temper ature profiles obtained from 
this work (black cir cles, LM 08), by D e Grandi & Molendi (blue 
squares, DM02), bylVikhlinin et al.. (red upward triangles, V05), 
and by iPratt et all (green diamonds, P07). All profiles are 
rescaled by kT^M and Rmo as defined in Sect. |4] The dashed 
line shows the best fit with a linear model beyond 0.2 R^^q (see 
Sect. 16. It and is drawn to guide the eye. Lower panel: residuals 
with respect to the linear model. The LM08 profile is the flattest 



6.5. Comparison with tiydrodynamic simulations 

In this subsection we compare our mean temperature profile 
with that der i ved fr om cluster hydrodynamic simulations by 
iBorgani et all (|2004 (hereaf ter B04). The authors used the 
TREE-hSPH code GADGET (Spring elet ani200lh to simulate 
a concordance cold dark matter cosmological model (O^ = 0.3, 
Qa = 0.7, erg = 0.8, and h = 0.7) within a box of 192 /i"' Mpc 
on a side, 480^ dark matter particles and as many gas particles. 
The simulation includes radiative cooling, star formation and su- 
pernova feedback. Simulated cluster profiles are scaled by the 
emission weighted global temperature and Ri^o calculated from 
its definition (i.e. the radius encompassing a spherical density 
contrast of 180 with respect to the critical density). In Fig.l20l 
we compare our observed profile to the projected mean profile 
obtained by averaging over simulated clusters with kr > 3 keV. 
The evident mismatch between the two profiles is most likely 
due to a different definition for the scaling temperature: actu- 
ally it is known that the emission weighted temperature is higher 
than the mean tempe rature obtained from observational data 
dMazzotta et al.ll2004 . By rescaling the B04 profile by 10%, we 
find a good agreement between simulation and our data beyond 
X 0.25 Rm)- Conversely in the core region, simulations are not 
able to reproduce the observed profile shape. 



6.6. Comparison witli previous observations 

In this subsection we compare our mean temperature pro- 
file (LM08) with tho s e obta in ed by other au t hors, n amely 
De Grandi & M olendi! (l2002l), IVikhlinin et alJ (l2005l) . and 



Pratt et all (12007). De Grandi & Molendi (DM02) have analyzed 



a sample of 21 hot (kr > 3.3 keV), nearby (z < 0.1) galaxy clus- 
ters observed with BeppoSAX. Th eir sample includes both CC 
and NCC clusters. IVikhlinin et al.l (V05) have analyzed a sam- 
ple of 13 nearby (z < 0.2), relaxed galaxy clusters and groups 



observed with Chandra. We select from their sample only the 
hottest (kr > 3.3 keV) 8 clusters, f or a more appropriate com- 
parison with our sample. [Pratt et al.l (P07) have analyzed a sam- 
ple of 15 hot (kr > 2.8 keV), nearby iz < 0.2) clusters observed 
with XMM-Newton. Clusters of their sample present a variety of 
X-ray morphology. 

Comparing diff'erent works is not trivial. Cluster physical 
properties, instrumental characteristics, and data analysis pro- 
cedures may diff'er. Moreover, each author uses his own recipe 
to calculate a mean temperature and to derive a scale radius. We 
have rescaled temperature profiles obtained by other authors, by 
using the standard cosmology (see Sect. [TJ and calculating the 
mean temperature, kFM, and the scale radius, Rm), as explained 
in Sect. |4l the aim is to reduce as much as possible all inhomo- 
geneities. 

In Fig. |2T]we compare the four mean temperature profiles, 
rescaled by krM and Rmo. Due to the correction for the biases 
described in Sect. 15.31 our mean profile is somewhat flatter than 
others beyond w 0.2 Rm). Discrepancies in the core region are 
due to a diff'erent fraction of CC clusters. The outermost point of 
the P07 profile is a; 25% lower, however it is constrained only 
by two measurements beyond w 0.6 Rm)- Our indicator, /, (see 
Sect. |4]i warns about the reliability of these two measurements, 
for which / » 0.3, i.e. a half of our threshold, /q = 0.6. In Fig.fTTI 
we showed that, when using our analysis technique, lower val- 
ues of / are associated to a bias on the temperature measurement. 
We assume that a somewhat similar systematic may affect the 
P07 analysis technique too. When excluding these two measure- 
ments, the P07 mean profile only extends out to ^ 0.6 Rm) and 
is consistent with ours (see also Fig.l22]i. It is possible that also 
measurements obtained with other experiments be affected by a 
similar kind of systematics, which make the profiles steeper 

We fit observed and simulated cluster profiles with a power 
law beyond 0.2 Rmo and in Fig. |22] report best fit parameters. 
The LM08 profile is the flattest one, however all observed pro- 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 



15 



: • LMOB 






A V05 




T B04 


J 




■ 


DM02 




♦ P07 




; 


+ 




+ 


\ 


n 


V 
T 


; 


i- 




' 






■■ 


T 


-1 


- 









-; 




, 




1 1 


^ 



1.2 

o 
a 
■^ 1.1 

6 

!-, 
O 

Z 1,0 

0.5 

X 0.4 

(D 

-a 

B 0.3 

0.2 |H 



Fig. 22. Best fit parameters, obtained by fitting with a power law 
observed and simulated cluster profiles, beyond 0.2 Rmo'- in the 
upper panel we report the normalization, in the lower the in- 
dex. We use the same symbols as in Fig.|2T|for observed clus- 
ters and a violet downward triangle for Borgani's work (B04). 
The normalization is calculated at 0.2 R]go- For P07 we report 
two values, empty diamonds indicate index and normalization 
obtained when excluding the two outermost measurements (see 
text for details). The empty downward triangle indicates the nor- 
malization of the B04 rescaled profile (see Sect. 16.51 ). In the 
lower panel, the dashed line and the shaded region represent the 
weighted average and its one sigma confidence interval derived 
from the observed profiles only (for P07 we use the lower value, 
i.e. the empty diamond). As previously noted from Fig. [21] the 
LM08 profile is the flattest one, but all indices of observed pro- 
files are consistent within two sigma. Conversely, the B04 profile 
seems to be significantly steeper, but in this case we are not able 
to provide an estimate of parameter uncertainty. 



file indices are consistent within 2-3 sigma. In Sect. l5.3l we have 
quantified the systematic underestimate on the temperature mea- 
surement associated to our procedure. Since it depends on the 
indicator /, which itself depends on the radius, we expect a net 
effect also on the profile index, fj., namely we expect yU to be over- 
estimated. For this reason, it is possible that the discrepancy be- 
tween indices obtained from different works (reported in Fig.l22ll 
may not have a purely statistical origin. We calculate an average 
profile index, // = 0.31 ± 0.02, which is significantly lower than 
that obtained from the B04 profile, fi = 0.39; however, for the 
simulation we are not able to provide an estimate of parameter 
uncertainty. 

7. Summary and conclusions 

We have analyzed a sample of » 50 hot, intermediate redshift 
galaxy clusters (see Sect.|2l) to measure their radial properties. In 
this paper we focused on the temperature profiles and postpone 
the analysis of the metallicity to a forthcoming paper (Leccardi 
& Molendi 2008, in preparation). In Sect. 16.41 we showed that 
our sample should be representative of hot, intermediate redshift 
clusters, at least with respect to the temperature profile. 
Our main results are summarized as follows: 

- the mean temperature profile declines with radius in the 
0.2 /?igo-0.6 Rm) range (see Sect.lUl; 



- when excluding the core region, the profiles are character- 
ized by an intrinsic dispersion (6%) comparable to the esti- 
mated systematics, (see Sect.|4|i; 

- there is no evidence of profile evolution with redshift out to 
z ~ 0.3 (see Sect.lOi: 

- the profile slope in the outer regions is independent of the 
presence of a cool core (see Sect. |6.3l i; 

- the slope of our mean profile is broadly similar to that ob- 
tained from hydrodynamic simulations, we find a discrep- 
ancy of x 10% in normalization probably due to a different 
definition for the scaling temperature (see Sect. 16.5b : 

- when compared to previous works, our profile is somewhat 
flatter (see Sect. |6.5l l, probably due to a different level of 
characterization of systematic effects, which become very 
important in the outer regions. 

The above results have been obtained using a novel data 
analysis technique, which includes two major improvements. 
Firstly, we used the background modeling, rather than the back- 
ground subtraction, and the Cash statistic rather than the x^\ 
this method requires a careful characterization of all background 
components. Secondly, we assessed in details systematic effects. 
We performed two groups of test: prior to the analysis, we made 
use of extensive simulations to quantify the impact of differ- 
ent components on simulated spectra; after the analysis, we in- 
vestigated how the measured temperature profile changes, when 
choosing different key parameters. 

From a more general point of view, ours is an attempt to mea- 
sure cluster properties, as far out as possible, with EPIC instru- 
ments. Perhaps, the most important justification for our efforts 
in this direction is that, for the next 5-10 years, there will be no 
experiments with comparable or improved capabilities, as far as 
low surface brightness emission is concerned. 

Acknowledgements. We acknowledge the financial contribution from contract 
ASI-INAF 1/088/06/0, 1/023/05/0, and 1/088/06/0. We thank S. Ghizzardi, 
M. Rossetti, and S. De Grandi for a careful reading of the manuscript. We thank 
S. Borgani, G. W. Pratt, and A. Vikhlinin for kindly providing their temperature 
profiles. 



References 

Anders, E. & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197 

Arnaud, M., Pointecouteau, E., & Pratt, G. W. 2005, A&A, 441, 893 

Bohringer, H.. Schuecker, P, Guzzo, L., et at. 2004, A&A, 425, 367 

Borgani, S., Murante, G., Springel, V., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1078 

Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939 

De Grandi, S. & Molendi, S. 2002, ApJ, 567, 163 

De Luca, A. & Molendi, S. 2004, A&A, 419, 837 

Dickey, J. M. & Lockman, F. J. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 215 

Eke, V. R., Navan-o, J. E, & Frenk, C. S. 1998, ApJ, 503, 569 

Ettori, S., De Grandi, S., & Molendi, S. 2002, A&A, 391, 841 

Fabian, A. C. & Allen, S. W. 2003, in Texas in Tuscany. XXI Symposium on 

Relativistic Asfi'ophysics, ed. R. Bandiera, R. Maiolino, & F. Mannucci, 197- 

208 
Finoguenov, A., Arnaud, M., & David, L. P 2001, ApJ, 555, 191 
Hem-y, J. P & Arnaud, K. A. 1991, ApJ, 372, 410 
Irwin, J. A. & Bregman, J. N. 2000, ApJ, 538, 543 
Irwin, J. A., Bregman, J. N., & Evrard, A. E. 1999, ApJ, 519, 518 
Keith, H. D. & Loomis, T. C. 1978, X-ray spectrometry, 7, 217 
Kuntz. K. 2006, ftp://epic3.xra.le.ac.uk/pub/cal-pv/meetings/mpe-2006- 

05/kk.pdf 
Kuntz, K. D. & Snowden, S. L. 2000, ApJ, 543, 195 
Leccardi, A. & Molendi, S. 2007, A&A, 472, 21 
Markevitch, M., Forman, W. R., Sarazin, C. L.. & Vikhlinin, A. 1998, ApJ, 503, 

77 
Mazzotta, P, Rasia, E., Moscardini, L., & Tormen, G. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 10 
McCarthy, I. G., Balogh, M. L., Babul, A., Poole, G. B., & Homer, D. J. 2004, 

ApJ, 613, 811 
McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P E. J., Wise, M. W., et al. 2005, Nature, 433, 45 



16 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 



> 



c 

O 

u 




Table A.l. Best fit parameters for the NXB broken power law. 
Fi and r2 are the slopes below and above the break energy, ^b- 



1 2 

Energy (keV) 

Fig. A.l. MOSl (thick) and MOS2 (thin) spectra from closed 
observations in the whole energy band, i.e. 0.2- 11. 3 keV. MOS2 
spectrum is scaled by a factor of 2 for clarity. Spectra are accu- 
mulated in the 10'-12' ring. The total exposure time is ^ 650 ks. 





r, 


£b [keV] 


r2 


MOSl 


0.22 


7.0 


0.05 


MOS2 


0.32 


3.0 


0.22 


Table A.2. Instrumental emission lines in 


the 0.7-1 


ergy band. 








Line 


E [keV] 


Line 


E [keV] 


AIKq- 


1.487 


MnKjS 


6.490 


AlK/3 


1.557 


FsK/3 


7.058 


SiKff 


1.740 


NiKff 


7.472 


SiK/3 


1.836 


CuKq- 


8.041 


Au Ma 


2.110 


NiK/3 


8.265 


AuMyS 


2.200 


ZnKo- 


8.631 


CrKo- 


5.412 


CuK/3 


8.905 


MnKa 


5.895 


ZnK/3 


9.572 


CrK/3 


5.947 


Au La 


9.685 


FeKo- 


6.400 







Piffaretti, R., Jetzer, P., Kaastra, J. S., & Tamura, T. 2005, A&A, 433, 101 
Ponman, T. J., Sanderson, A. J. R., & Finoguenov, A. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 331 
Pratt, G. W., Amaud, M., & Pointecouteau, E. 2006, A&A, 446, 429 
Pratt, G. W., Bohringer, H., Croston, J. H., et al. 2007, A&A, 461, 71 
Roncai-elli, M., Ettori, S., Dolag, K., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1339 
Snowden, S. L., Egger, R., Freyberg, M. J., et al. 1997, ApJ, 485, 125 
Snowden, S. L., Mushotzky, R. F, Kuntz, K. D., & Davis, D. S. 2008, A&A, 

478, 615 
Springel, V., Yoshida, N., & White, S. D. M. 2001, New Astronomy, 6, 79 
Tozzi, P., Scharf, C, & Norman, C. 2000, ApJ, 542, 106 
Vikhlinin, A., Markevitch, M., Murray, S. S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 655 
Voit, G. M. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 36, 701 
White, D. A. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 663 



Appendix A: The analysis of "closed" observations 

We have analyzed a large number (x 50) of observations with 
the filter wheel in the "closed" position to characterize in detail 
the EPIC-MOS internal background and to provide constraints 
to the background model, which we use for analyzing our data. 
Exposure times of individual observations span between 5 and 
100 ks for a total exposure time of » 650 ks. 

For each observation, we select 6 concentric rings (0'-2.75', 
2.75'-4.5', 4.5'-6', 6'-8', 8'-10', and 10'-12') centered on the de- 
tector center For each instrument (i.e. MOSl and MOS2) and 
each ring, we produce the total spectrum by summing, chan- 
nel by channel, spectral counts accumulated during all observa- 
tions. The appropriate RMF is associated to each total spectrum 
and a minimal grouping is performed to avoid channels with no 
counts. In Fig. lA.ll we report the total spectra accumulated in the 
10'-12' ring, for MOSl and MOS2, in the 0.2-11.3 keV band. 
Closed observation events are solely due to the internal back- 
ground, which is characterized by a cosmic -ray induced contin- 
uum (NXB) plus several fluorescence emission lines. The most 
intense lines are due to Al (a 1.5 keV) and Si (~ 1.8 keV). 
Beyond 2 keV we fit the NXB with a single power law (in- 
dex 0.24 and 0.23 for MOSl and MOS2 respectively); instead, 
for the 0.7-10.0 keV range, a broken power-law (see Table lA.ll 
is more appropriate. Emission lines are modeled by Gaussians. 
Note that particle background components are not multiplied by 
the effective area. 

In Table IA.2I we list the emission lines of our model with 
their rest frame energies. Normalization values are always re- 



ported in XSPEC units. Lines are determined by 3 parameters: 
peak energy, intrinsic width and normalization. The energy of 
Al Ka, Eai, is free to allow for a small shift in the energy scale; 
the energies of Al, Si, and Au-M lines are linked to Eai in such a 
way that a common shift, AE, is applied to all lines. Similarly, the 
energy of Cr Ka, Ecr, is free and the energies of all other lines 
are linked to Ecr. The intrinsic width is always fixed to zero, ex- 
cept for Al and Si lines for which it is fixed to 0.0022 keV to 
allow for minor mismatches in energy calibrations for different 
observations. Normalizations of Ka, Al, and Si lines are free, 
while normalizations of K/3 l ines are forced to be o ne seventh of 
the correspondent Ka line (Keith & Loomis 1978). The correla- 
tion between broken power-law and Gaussian parameters is very 
weak. 

As noticed bv' Kuntj (|2006|) . there are observations in which 
the count rate of some CCDs is very different, especially at low 
energies, indicating that the NXB spectral shape is not constant 
over the detector. In particular, this problem affects MOS 1 CCD- 
4 and CCD-5 and MOS2 CCD-2 and CCD-5. Since our pro- 
cedure requires background parameters to be rescaled from the 
outer to the inner rings, we always exclude the above mentioned 
"bright" CCDs from data analysis, when using the 0.7-10.0 keV 
band (see Sect. 13.1. It . This is not necessary when using the band 
above 2 keV, because the effect is negligible for almost all ob- 
servations. 

After the exclusion of the bright CCDs, we fit spectra ac- 
cumulated in the 10'- 12' ring for different closed observations, 
to check for temporal variations of the NXB. In Fig. IA.2I we 
report the values of broken power-law free parameters (namely 
the slopes, Fi and F2, and the normalization, A^) for both MOS in 
the 0.7-10.0 keV band. The scatter of Fi and F2 values is of the 
same order of magnitude as the statistical uncertainties, while 
the scatter of the A^ values (^ 20%) is not purely statistic, i.e. 
NXB normalization varies for different observations. 

We also check for spatial variations of the internal back- 
ground. As explained at the beginning of this section, we ac- 
cumulate the total spectrum for each of the 6 rings and for each 
instrument. We define the surface brightness, SB, as the ratio be- 
tween A^ and the area of the ring. In Fig. |A. 31 we report MOSl 
and MOS2 best fit values of SB as a function of the distance 
from the center, by fixing Fi and F2. The spatial variations are 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 



17 





0.020 



0.016 




10 20 30 40 



10 20 30 40 50 





0.020 - 



10 20 30 40 50 




10 20 30 40 50 



Fig. A.2. Fi, Fa, and A^ values for MOSl (top) and MOS2 (bottom) for all closed observations analyzed. The dotted lines are the 
best fit values reported in Table lA.fl For Fi and F2 the scatter is comparable with the uncertainties, while for A^ there is an intrinsic 
scatter of w 20%. A^ values are reported in XSPEC units. 




1.50 






« 


* 


1.45 


T 


t 


» 




1.40 








; 


1.35 











a 4 6 8 10 12 

R [arcmin] 



2 4 6 8 10 12 
R [arcmin] 



Fig. A.3. Surface brightness best fit values for MOS 1 (left) and 
M0S2 (right) as a function of the distance from the detector cen- 
ter. 



greater than statistical errors but smaller than 5%. To a first ap- 
proximation, the NXB is flat over the detector We find similar 
results, both in terms of temporal and spatial variations, when 
fitting spectra above 2 keV. 

Emission lines show rather weak temporal variations and 
most of them (namely all except for Al, Si, and Au) have a uni- 
form distribution over the detector Al lines are more intense in 
the external CCDs, while Si lines are more intense in the cen- 
tral CCD. Conversely, Au lines are very localized in the outer 
regions of the field of view, thus we model them only when ana- 
lyzing rings beyond 3.5'. 

Appendix B: The analysis of "blank field" 
observations 

A large number (^ 30) of "blank field" observations have been 
analyzed to characterize the spectrum of other background com- 
ponents. Exposure times of individual observations span be- 
tween 30 and 90 ks for a total exposure time of x 600 ks. Almost 
each observation has a different pointing in order to maximize 



the observed sky region and minimize the cosmic variance of 
the X-ray background. 

Data are prepared and cleaned as described in Sects. 13.1.11 
and l3.1.2l For each instrument (i.e. MOSl and M0S2) and each 
filter (i.e. THINl and MEDIUM), we produce total spectra by 
summing, channel by channel, spectral counts accumulated dur- 
ing all observations, after the selection of the same rings used 
for closed observations (see AppendixlAll. The appropriate RMF 
and ARE are associated to each spectrum and a minimal group- 
ing is performed to avoid channels with no counts. We also cal- 
culate the average /?SB (see Sect. |3.1.2] i, obtaining 1.09+0.01 for 
both filters and both detectors. 

Inside the field of view, the spectral components are the fol- 
lowing (see Fig. IB. II ): 

- the X-ray background from Galaxy Halo (HALO), 

- the cosmic X-ray background (CXB), 

- the quiescent soft protons (QSP), 

- the cosmic ray induced continuum (NXB), 

- the fluorescence emission lines. 

Only the photon components (i.e. HALO and CXB) are mul- 
tiplied by the effective area and absorbed by our Galaxy. The 
equivalent hydrogen column density along the line of sight, A^h , 
is fixed to the 21 cm measurement (jDickev & Lockm an 1990), 
averaged over all fields. We selected blank field observations 
pointed at high galactic latitude, therefore A^h is < 10^' cm"^ 
and the absorption effect is negligible above 1 keV. 

In the 0.7-10.0 keV band, the total model is composed of a 
thermal component (HALO), a power law (CXB), two broken 
power laws (QSP and NXB), and several Gaussians (fluores- 
cence emission lines). The thermal model (APEC in XSPEC) 
parameters are: kr - 0.197 keV, Z = 1.0 Z©, and z - 0.0 
( Kuntz & S nowden 2000). The slope of the CXB power law is 
fixed to 1 .4 JDe Luca & Molendill2004 ) and the normalization is 
calculated at 3 keV to minimize the correlation with the slope. 



18 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 

Table B.2. Correction factors. 



c 

3 
O 
U 





' 1 


h 






- 


d 


- 


h 






- 




^•WfS-H^ 


•V-w-n 


^^yZ. 


;:^;^^^ 


NXB - 




" Jpp- — -^ 




^ 








CXB 


1 

o 


, , 1 


\ Hal 


! Qsp 




V^ 



10 



Energy (keV) 



Fig.B.l. MOSl spectrum from blank field observations in the 
10'-12' ring. Above 2 keV the spectrum is simpler. 

Table B.l. Best fit results for the analysis of blank field obser- 
vations in the 10' -12' ring. 



Instr. 


Filter 


A'halo 

[10-^] 


A'qsp 

[10-^] 


^CXB 

[10-^] 


MOSl 
M0S2 


THINl 
THINI 


1.7±0.1 
1.6±0.1 


2.4±0.1 
2.5±0.1 


5.1±0.1 
5.0+0.1 


MOSl 
M0S2 


MEDIUM 
MEDIUM 


1.4±0.1 
1.6±0.1 


2.6+0.1 
2.4±0.1 


6.0+0.1 
5.8+0.1 



Notes: " calculated at 3 keV. 



The QSP broken power law has a break energy at 5.0 keV; the 
slopes are fixed to 0.4 (below 5 keV) and 0.8 (above 5 keV). 
The model parameters for the internal background are the same 
as reported in Appendix lAl In the 2.0-10.0 keV band the model 
is simpler, namely three power laws and several Gaussians, and 
more stable. The HALO component is negligible above 2 keV, 
the CXB model is the same as in the 0.7-lO.OkeV band, the slope 
of the QSP power law is fixed to 1 .0, and the model parameters 
for the internal background are those reported in AppendixlAl 

Most components have rather similar spectral shapes (see 
Fig. IB.lt . therefore a high degree of parameter degeneracy is 
present. In such cases, it is useful to constrain as many parame- 
ters as possible. Events outside the field of view are exclusively 
due to the internal background, therefore the spectrum accumu- 
lated in this region provides a good estimate of the NXB normal- 
ization, A^NXB- By analyzing closed (CL) observations we found 
that the ratio between A^nxb calculated in any two detector re- 
gions is independent of the particular observation: 



NuxBJRuOi) _ N^xb(Ri;02) 
A^nxb(/?2;0i) Nnxb(R2;02) 



(B.l) 



where R12 are two detector regions and O12 are two observa- 
tions. By using the region outside the field of view (OUT), from 
Eq. lB.ll we estimate and fix A^nxb for each ring (R) of blank field 
(BF) observations; 



N^xB(R;BF) = Nt,xB(R;CL)x 



Nt,xB(OUT;BF) 
Nnxb(OUT-CL) 



(B.2) 



In Table IBTI we report the best fit values for the normaliza- 
tion of the HALO, A^halo, of the QSP, A^qsp, and of the CXB, 
A^cxB, in the 10'-12' ring, for MOSl and MOS2 instruments and 



Ring 


HALO 


CXB 




MOSl 


MOS2 


MOSl 


MOS2 


0'-2.75' 


0.62 


0.68 


0.80 


0.91 


2.75'-4.5' 


0.74 


0.70 


0.70 


0.78 


4.5'-6' 


0.63 


0.65 


0.89 


0.95 


6'-8' 


0.74 


0.71 


0.89 


0.92 



for THINl and MEDIUM filters. Spectra are fitted in the 0.7- 
10.0 keV energy band. We stress the remarkably good agree- 
ment between MOSl and MOS2, for all parameters. Moreover, 
we point out that, when comparing observations with different 
filters, values for A^halo and A^qsp also agree, while values for 
NcxB are significantly different (x 20%) because of the cosmic 
variance (x 15% expected for the considered solid angles). 

By construction (see Eq.[Tli /?sb is related to A^qsp so that the 
higher Rsb, the higher A^qs?. For observations that are not con- 
taminated by QSP, we will measure 7?sb ~ 1 .0 and A^qsp ~ 0.0. 
Since /?sb values span a relatively small range (roughly between 
1.0 and 1.5) we approximate the relation between R^b and A^qs? 
with a linear function: A^qsp = A x (7?sb - 1)- The scaling fac- 
tor, A X 0.03, is determined from the analysis of blank fields 
observations, for which we have measured /?sb = 1.09 + 0.01 
and A^Qsp = (2.5 + 0.1) x 10"^. Thus, for each observation we 
model the bulk of the QSP component by deriving A^qsp from 
RsB (see Sects. [mi and [XZ2l i. In Sects. l5T3l and l5X3l we dis- 
cuss possible systematics related to QSP and show that the linear 
approximation used above is satisfactory. 

As mentioned in Sect. 13.2.11 we estimate the normalizations 
of the background components in the 10'- 12' ring and rescale 
them in the inner rings; when considering the 0.7-10.0 keV en- 
ergy band, a simple rescaling by the area ratio is too rough and 
causes systematic errors, especially in the outer regions where 
cluster emission and background fluctuations become compa- 
rable. To overcome this problem, we proceed in the following 
manner: we fit blank field spectra, by fixing A^nxb and A^qsp, and 
determine A^cxb and A^halo best fit values. For each ring and 
instrument, we define a correction factor, K{ry. 



Kir) 



AUs 



(B.3) 



where A^obs is the best fit value that we have just obtained and 
A^exp is derived by rescaling the value measured in the 10'-12' 
ring by the area ratio. In Table IB. 21 we report the values for 
Kir) for all cases. Kir) is a second order correction, because 
the contribution of CXB and HALO components to the total flux 
is relatively small: when considering only the 0.7-2.0 keV band 
(i.e. the energy range in which these components are more in- 
tense), the HALO-to-total and the CXB-to-total flux ratios are 
a! 5% and ^ 20% respectively. Thus, the effective correction is 
only of a few percent for both cases. Different observations have 
different centers in detector coordinates and the intensity of the 
various components depends on the particular observation; these 
facts could cause some discrepancies, however since we have an- 
alyzed a large number of blank and cluster fields, we expect only 
a few percent systematic effect on the mean profile. When con- 
sidering the band above 2 keV, the statistical quality of the data 
is poorer, therefore the rescaling by the area ratio (i.e. no cor- 
rection factor) can be considered a good approximation for both 
CXB and NXB. The QSP val ue is rescaled by the soft proton 
vignetting profile ( lKuntzll2006l) and does not require any correc- 
tion factor. 



A. Leccardi and S. Molendi: Radial temperature profiles for a large sample of galaxy clusters observed with XMM-Newton 19 

Unfortunately, a precise characterization of the QSP compo- 
nent for EPIC-pn is not possible. Uncertainties on A^nxb are very 
large, because the region outside the EPIC-pn field of view is 
much smaller than the MOS one; the presence of a non negligible 
fraction of out-of-time events introduces a further complication. 
Moreover, the EPIC-pn background is much less stable than the 
EPIC-MOS one, especially below 2 keV. The EPIC-pn instru- 
ment has further drawbacks due to the electronic board near the 
detector: the NXB spatial distribution is not flat and the emission 
due to Ni-Cu-Zn lines (between ^ 7.5 keV and ^ 9.5 keV) is 
more intense in the outer rings. For these reasons, as mentioned 
in Sect. [3] we consider only EPIC-MOS data in our analysis.